Timothy McVeigh v. Lon Horiuchi
Timothy McVeigh v. Lon Horiuchi
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 30, 2015
From time to time, on Internet radio shows or various discussions, I am accused of supporting Timothy McVeigh. This accusation has been leveled more frequently, of late, including from an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), in opposition to a series of articles I have been writing.
This recent case, consistent with some of the previous accusations, are responses born of the inability of the other side to offer any viable refutation to arguments I have set forth. This is most commonly known as argumentum ad hominem. It is more accurately and understandably described as, ‘if you can’t counter the argument attack the messenger’.
First, understand what I have said –that has been converted to a simple and blanket “support for Timothy McVeigh”. I have always said that I am supportive of McVeigh’s motivation for bombing the Murrah Building. After all, for the two years since Waco, as I traveled the country, I heard many patriots say that we should bomb a government building. I still stand behind that, though I always qualify that support, explaining that if it were my job to do, I would have done it differently. I would have bombed the building at night. However, McVeigh had to make the call, as it was his mission. And, though little known, he did explain why he bombed it in the daytime. He offers his explanation in an article he wrote, “An Essay on Hypocrisy, by Tim McVeigh“, and goes into more detail in “Why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building“.
I have also written my assessment of McVeigh and the bombing in “The Passing of the Torch“.
This most recent accusation, from an AUSA, someone who is “supporting” the FBI in the case he is prosecuting, brings to mind a consideration of who he “supports”.
There was an FBI sniper present at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in support of the government’s effort to put down a man, Randy Weaver, who had refused to turn informant for the government. This sniper, Lon Horiuchi, from just a few hundred feet away, managed to miss his claimed target and hit a mother, Vicki Weaver, holding her infant child in her arms, and killing her instantly. The Rules of Engagement, later determined to be unlawful, provided that snipers could shoot any male holding a firearm. Vicki was, without any doubt, not of the male sex — a fact easily determined through the sniper rifle scope.
RUBY RIDGE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, August 22, 1992
1) If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement [of surrender], deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.
Now, after the first murder by Horiuchi, the FBI continued to keep him on staff, an obvious act of support, and brought him to a scene where his skills could, again, be put to effective but illegal use. It was just a few months later that Sniper Horiuchi went to Waco, Texas, and participated in the killing of over 80 men, woman, and children, including one “coffin birth” and one unborn child.
Some were shot to death by sniper fire and others burned to death by fire started by the FBI or other government agents. (Note: Ron Cole and I found three sandbagged sniper positions, in May 1993.) However, he is assured a pension from his employment for the government, both military and FBI.
I am sure that the AUSA would support Lon Horiuchi, either tacitly, or openly, if asked to do so.
So, if I am to take sides in what is surely inevitable in this country, then I will be required to support either Lon Horiuchi, or, Timothy McVeigh. In weighing the intent behind the actions of both Horiuchi and McVeigh, I find that McVeigh did not specifically target children, while Horiuchi acted with depraved indifference to the presence of children, in both instances.
It is possible that the AUSA would never openly support Lon Horiuchi, though he will surely never damn him. The fact that Horiuchi is now comfortably retired lends credence to the supposition that both government agencies and personnel continue to overtly support Horiuchi.
I would like to extend my thanks to the AUSA for bring this subject to my attention. Absent his criticism, I might never have broached the subject.
Gary,
It has always amazed me how Tim McVeigh was quickly executed after conviction. The Feds were also quick to declare McVeigh’s actions as terrorism. Not so with the Muslim terrorist, Nidal Hasan who was convicted of 13 murders and 32 attempted murders in Hasan’s terrorist attack on troops at Fort Hood in 2009. While McVeighs’s actions were determined by the Feds to be “terrorism” Hasan’s action has been declared by the soetoro-obama facade to be “workplace violence” Utter bull dung !
Why the kid glove treatment of Hasan ? For me the answer lies right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the corruption that infests the U.S. government today.
McVeigh waived any appeals, after the first one. He chose not to sustain his life in prison.
He was courageous and committed to his cause.
Others, who have no problem sending others to their death as suicide bombers, seem to be reluctant to get to their 72 virgins.
As far as “terrorism”, I will be republishing an article wrote back in 1995, “Terrorism? or, an Act of War?”, shortly.
I’ll be looking forward to the republish.
[…] the past, Hunt had blogged about being “supportive [of] McVeigh’s motivation” for the attack. He said, hypothetically, that if blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma […]